Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateNew HampshireIntroduced
HB 1746: subjecting taxpayer funded investigations to the right-to-know law.
Matt Sabourin dit Choinière
HB 1746 status: Introduced — Executive Session: 09/30/2026 10:00 am GP 230 (updated Sep 4, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
69OUT OF 100
Score:69/100 civic fit
Risk:Moderate Risk
Impact:High Impact 75/100
Constitutionality80%
Bipartisan65%
Public opinion85%
Bill summary
What changes
HB 1746 requires that any record, report, or material generated during an investigation funded by public money be subject to NH's 'Right-to-Know' (RSA 91-A) disclosure requirements.
Who is affected
All state agencies (including DOJ and State Police), county governments, and local municipalities that conduct or fund investigations.
Requirements and enforcement
Agencies must release investigative records with only 'narrowly tailored' redactions protected by law (e.g., HIPAA/FERPA). Findings and conclusions cannot be withheld in full.
Costs and funding
The bill is unfunded. Fiscal notes estimate state expenditures between $130,000–$500,000 annually, with municipal costs ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per entity, depending on request volume.
When it takes effect
Takes effect 60 days after passage.
Potential benefits
Increases transparency, reduces government secrecy, and ensures public access to findings from investigations paid for by taxpayer funds.
Risks and tradeoffs
Significant unfunded administrative burden, potential for litigation over redaction standards, and risks to agency resource allocation for active investigations.
What is still unknown
The precise number of future Right-to-Know requests resulting from this change and the total long-term impact on local government legal budgets.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Mixed / Neutral
45%
Benefits
- Increases public market trust by revealing investigation findings
- Reduces information asymmetry between public and government
- Promotes better compliance through threat of public scrutiny
Risks
- Unfunded fiscal mandate for state and local government agencies
- Increased personnel costs for legal review and redaction
- Likely increase in litigation expenses over redaction disputes
Society
Positive outlook
80%
Benefits
- Enhances public trust in taxpayer-funded investigations
- Ensures citizens have access to findings of public interest
- Removes opaque barriers to governmental accountability
Risks
- Risk of collateral privacy intrusion despite redaction mandates
- Possible chilling effect on internal candid investigative reporting
- Increased focus on litigation rather than resolution
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
90%
Benefits
- Codifies public right to access records of public investigations
- Strips privacy shields from public officials acting in official capacity
- Mandates narrow redactions to prevent over-classification
Risks
- Ambiguity in 'narrowly tailored' standards may spark legal fights
- Potential for bad-faith requests to overwhelm agency operations
- Lack of standardized oversight mechanism for record releases
Public Health & Safety
Positive outlook
60%
Benefits
- Greater transparency into public safety investigations
- Exposes patterns in safety oversight failures
- Encourages more rigorous investigative standards
Risks
- Personnel strain may reduce time available for active investigations
- Risk of disclosing sensitive methodologies in safety reviews
- Delayed responses to safety incidents due to legal review backlog
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
High potential for legal challenges regarding the definition of 'narrowly tailored' redactions
Analysis scope
No precise fiscal impact figure available; projections are estimates
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedCurrent
- CommitteeUpcoming
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.